Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

After reading through the roleplaying section of dakka I've often seen examples of people having problems with rules and arguments developing because of them, the munchkin thread is a good example. As such I want to pose a question to my fellow DM/GM's as well as other players about theirs. Specifically how powerful in your group is your DM? For example as DM do you bind yourself to the rules and follow them or do you feel free to fudge them and change as you wish, stopping any people trying to rules lawyer, but making the game less streamlined. Essentially the question boils down to how powerful do you make your groups DM. Thanks for any answers.

I try to follow the rules, I've been playing DnD and Pathfinder long enough that I can go without referencing most rules, I will still look up the random thing here or there as I need to, but the biggest rule at my table is, unless you can prove me wrong quickly and politely with the books, my word is law. This tends to avoid petty squabbling about rules at the table. To counter this, I also do make things up on the fly. Like if a player wants to do some random actions outside of combat quickly that doesn't have an action or skill associated with it, I try to do a best fit and go from there.

Since we only have 4 hours every two weeks to play, I try to keep my game running as smooth as possible.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Since we only have 4 hours every two weeks to play, I try to keep my game running as smooth as possible.

Yep, fun and continuity are more important than slavish devotion to RAW. I do what I need to to keep things going and have fun.

 pretre wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Since we only have 4 hours every two weeks to play, I try to keep my game running as smooth as possible.

Yep, fun and continuity are more important than slavish devotion to RAW. I do what I need to to keep things going and have fun.

I agree.

In general, my preferred methodology for this is that the GM shouldn't be actively challenged mid-game (as keeping things moving is important) but the GM is obligated to give time to any concerns brought up between games, and make an effort to compensate if decisions made in the interest of keeping the game moving were incorrect and penalized players.

So let's say I'm running a game and pretre is a player. We can't find the arcane rules for breath holding in whatever rules we're using, so I wing it. Pretre's character ends up failing a roll and dies. between games, pretre finds the real rules and notes that there's a big difference between the rules as written and the quick version. A big enough difference that pretre's character's Special Giant Lung ability was not taken into account. If this is brought up to me, I'd feel obligated to retcon that pretre's character actually survived, maybe unconscious, and can return at a dramatically appropriate moment. If this isn't feasible ("And then, of course, we burned the body.") we can either rewind a bit or work something out. If nothing else, pretre was wronged, which means that pretre has some additional leeway for acceptable replacement characters. Pretre's replacement is much more likely to get away with an unusual character combination ("OK, I'll let you play that Wombat Wizard you wanted but I thought was silly, but you need to do this...") or get some special goodies ("OK, you're coming in as leader of a squad of troopers. They're mooks and will die easily, but they're yours to control until they do.").

This all requires the players and GM be mature about things, though. I also, when I ran games, liked to take 5-10 minutes at the beginning of the session to review any rules questions and similar.

If I was running Paranoia things would be different.

Woohoo! Wombat Wizard time.

 Balance wrote:
If I was running Paranoia things would be different.

It always is!

As we have 3 or 4 rotating GMs (mostly Pathfinder), we try to come to agreement on how a rule or game mechanic works and stick with it.

For the game systems with only one GM, we make our arguments, but the GM makes the call and that's that. We're pretty fair about things, trying to figure out RAI as much as we can, then move on.

We're all like-minded adults in our 30s, so there really isn't much fuss.

 pretre wrote:
Woohoo! Wombat Wizard time.

You can play a Wombat Wizard in any game I run, pretre.

Woohoo! Now to kidnap you and keep you in a barn.
We're still on a break from actual RPGs in our group right now but a captive DM would probably change that.

The question confuses me. As a DM, my power is absolute. I don't understand what the alternative option would even be.

The question is wonky, but the spirit of it in the OP's post is, how strict are you with the rules, how much power do you give to the players and the group as a whole.

You answered the second part by saying that your power is absolute.

I see the GM as one of the players at the table -- not a referee, not a mediator, not a film director, not a god/the gods. In my view, the GM is not responsible for everything other than the PC's character sheets; the other players also share in responsibility for fleshing out the world beyond their characters. The "supreme" kind of GM is what I consider a "beginner's GM." It's what people new to or not very good at RPGs need. Folks with more experience, knowledge, skill, and talent don't need to be "game mastered."

 Alfndrate wrote:
The question is wonky, but the spirit of it in the OP's post is, how strict are you with the rules, how much power do you give to the players and the group as a whole.

You answered the second part by saying that your power is absolute.

Yeah you've phrased the question better than me. Thanks for the answers guys, myself I must admit believe in firm and fair, but still overall all powerful, as best to avoid having rule debates and allowing a better flow of pace.

 Alfndrate wrote:
The question is wonky, but the spirit of it in the OP's post is, how strict are you with the rules, how much power do you give to the players and the group as a whole.

You answered the second part by saying that your power is absolute.

I see, well, let me rephrase my answer then. My power is absolute only in as so far as what I do to make sure that the players enjoy themselves. I have changed/handwaved rules in the name of making sure everyone has fun. If anyone dreads having to play in my game, then I'm not winning as a DM.

I use rules as a framework.

If I want something to be more dramatic, I'll fudge the rules and/or rolls. If I think that something was incredibly bad luck, I might keep it but reduce the penalty to keep it exciting without punishing the players (i.e. if a boss super-crits on the first attack and would instantly take a player out of the fight, I might put them at critical health)

If a character wants to do something that isn't covered in the rules or campaign, I'll find something analogous and work from there.

My role as GM is to keep the game fun and/or dramatic, and that generally means I don't care about the minutiae.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
My power is absolute only in as so far as what I do to make sure that the players enjoy themselves

Couldn't have put it better.

 daedalus wrote:
The question confuses me. As a DM, my power is absolute. I don't understand what the alternative option would even be.

Having people play with you twice.

As a player, that's the ultimate end-game option to deal with a jerk GM.

daedalus clarified that pretty well. I don't really think it's worth calling him out as an implicit jerk is appropriate. I've also never known a GM to abuse their power except once when the guy was just a bit overenthusiastic in helping.

GMd a few CoC sessions so far, and il agree with fun over numbers. A few times iv had to quickly scramble to find a rule for something that im still not completely used to, and we generally try to keep things running smoothly. The Income system for example is a confusing mess, so by now iv just said feth it and il (within reason) allow them a few "free purchases" that they could reasonably afford each session. Black market or elaborate stuff il just have them make a skill roll for to see if they get it or not, and if they do then no new goodies for them for awhile.

Rules are guidelines that are there to help the GM

So use them but fudge as appropriate, BUT and this is the key,

everybody is there to have fun so everybody needs to be aware that they are only there as guidelines and that you stay consistent for every PC involved

(giving one PC a break, but not offering the same break to another PC in similar circumstances is wrong)

as to players rules lawyering, it's fine to bring an issue up, and a GM should be able to say, oops missed that your right,

but if the GM says they're running it differently their word is law

 Balance wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
The question confuses me. As a DM, my power is absolute. I don't understand what the alternative option would even be.

Having people play with you twice.

As a player, that's the ultimate end-game option to deal with a jerk GM.

That isn't really a helpful response. My point is, there's nothing a DM can't do to work toward their end goal. It's their world; their sandbox. The hard rules put in the book don't matter. They're guidelines that go away the moment the DM says they do.

As stated before though, the point of the DM is to forge a story, and make sure everyone is having fun. The moment either of those things stops happening, you're failing as a DM. I've played with plenty of terrible DMs. I've had story-nazi DMs, where if you take things off the rails, he gets pissed and puts you on the plot rails. I've had Mary Sue DMs: "My character from a previous game shows up. Idolize him or he kills you." I've had Deathmatch DMs (It's me versus you, I have all the resources and control of the story, and I'm going to fight you like we're on equal footing).

I spent a good four or five years playing under (mostly bad) DMs before I even began thinking about running games of my own. At this point, if everyone stops having fun, I apologize and bust out the beer, and then we spend the rest of the night talking through what I need to do to make the game stop sucking, and then I make it happen, but that's ultimately up to me. No book stands in my way and, obviously, neither do the players, because they want the same goal.

 daedalus wrote:

 Balance wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
The question confuses me. As a DM, my power is absolute. I don't understand what the alternative option would even be.

Having people play with you twice.

As a player, that's the ultimate end-game option to deal with a jerk GM.

That isn't really a helpful response. My point is, there's nothing a DM can't do to work toward their end goal. It's their world; their sandbox. The hard rules put in the book don't matter. They're guidelines that go away the moment the DM says they do.

As I stated earlier, I generally feel the GM shouldn't be challenged in play. On the other hand, I've seen GMs who make the player characters completely useless (No, your powers don't work the way the book says... Sorry.), focus on gaming stuff the characters aren't actually involved in (The two gladiators are fighting! Let me roll their attacks for 20 minutes while you watch!), or various other problems.

Players should try to deal with this kind of thing politely, but after a point the best option is to go elsewhere. The game will fill open space with players willing to take the abuse or that find that kind of thing enjoyable, the GM will reconsider and change things, or the game will die.

I did not call you a jerk... I did say that player's shouldn't play with a jerk GM.

 daedalus wrote:

As stated before though, the point of the DM is to forge a story, and make sure everyone is having fun. The moment either of those things stops happening, you're failing as a DM. I've played with plenty of terrible DMs. I've had story-nazi DMs, where if you take things off the rails, he gets pissed and puts you on the plot rails. I've had Mary Sue DMs: "My character from a previous game shows up. Idolize him or he kills you." I've had Deathmatch DMs (It's me versus you, I have all the resources and control of the story, and I'm going to fight you like we're on equal footing).

I spent a good four or five years playing under (mostly bad) DMs before I even began thinking about running games of my own. At this point, if everyone stops having fun, I apologize and bust out the beer, and then we spend the rest of the night talking through what I need to do to make the game stop sucking, and then I make it happen, but that's ultimately up to me. No book stands in my way and, obviously, neither do the players, because they want the same goal.

You just admitted you don't have absolute power, then! If you take other's opinions into account and adjust as needed, you're doing the right thing.

Fair enough, I misjudged the tone of your post.

While I take input from my players, they respect my final decision on where to take the game. Further, I overrule the book as needed, and do so often. From my point of view, though I don't always exercise it (i.e. be a dick), I always looked at it what was effectively absolute authority.